| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 27.02.97 14:39l 198 Lines 7962 Bytes #-10707 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_97_24D
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 97/24D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KCP<DB0ZKA<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SEL<DB0ZDF<DB0HOM<LX0PAC<ON7RC<
ON4AWP<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8VNW
Sent: 970227/1015Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:49730 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA30101 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 09:44:36 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00001770 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:18:14 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00001753 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:12 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.6) with SMTP
id AA00009196 ; Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:07:04 MET
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 08:03:29 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_97_24D>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 97/24D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> Alert all concerned hams in Australia that this is a time to speak out FOR
> amateur radio, and AGAINST amateur telephone. Tell them that THIS is their
> opportunity to halt the saturation and replacement of the digital amateur
> radio network in Australia with "amateur telephone" systems which do not
> even use radio as their primary means of communication.
Code forever! Diddly Dah! rah rah rah! :)
Have you ever listened to Tony Hancocks "The Radio Ham" ?
My guess is you wouldn't understand the real humour.
> Finally, ask the ASMA if they are willing to give up the emergency
> communications "backup" capability which amateur RADIO provides in times
> when phone lines are dead or ( as is more often the case ) simply
> overloaded during the course of an emergency or disaster.
Oh yeh, this one. I agree completely, I love radio, it was and is my
first
love. Computing was my second and is now an equal first. I see many real
advantages to maintaining the existence of amateur radio, I'm not about
removing it, though I do tend to agree with Phil's comments if you've
quoted him correctly. On the _whole_ I believe amateur radio is waste of
spectrum and represents a gross social inequity, which the SMA has been
sensible enough to remedy by moving toward a user pays scheme.
My frustration is that any attempt to actually do any truly progressive
and technological is hampered by lack of application. If there isn't
any application more useful than enabling people like me to talk to
people like you then I'll dump radio. I'm not interested in talking
about the weather and what my dog did in the backyard. I already have
friends. The internet/irc/mud/moo is a much much more appropriate forum
for idle social interaction at great distance. My interest in radio
is purely technical but I'm persistently being interfered with by
the non-technical bulk of radio amateurs. Nothing frustrates me more
in this hobby the amateur radio operators that refuse to embrace new
technology.
> I sure will, Terry. Count on it.
They are unlikely to listen very seriously to what you have to say. It
is
after all a domestic issue.
Thanks for your response, but it wasn't what I was looking for. I was
looking for _technical_ justifications, the social/ethical/practical
ones are obvious.
I didn't intend this to generate a pointless flame war. I thought my
request was reasonable and inoffensive. For a society that claims to
be based on civil and social liberty a lot of U.S. hams seem hell bent
on restricting the rights of others.
Terry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:06:13 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Benefits of AMPR IP encapsulation gateways.
> Charles Brabham wrote:
>
> > Show then a map of the global amateur radio forwarding network,
indicating
> > the large gaps which have appeared in this network as packet/internet
> > gateways have come into use.
>
> The 'forwarding' network. Shit. I'd be ashamed to. Your idea of a useful
> network doesn't match that of mine.
>
Obviously your idea of being a ham doesn't match mine either. Where I come
from, we try to avoid activities which detract from the enjoyment of
others.
Nobody on the existing amateur radio forwarding net you disparage so asked
a bunch of nincompoops with Internet connections to join in that network,
or to destroy large portions of it by replacing functioning RF links with
"amateur telephone" links..
Given your opinion of the global RF forwarding net, I can see no reason you
would wish to participate in it, except the obvious, intentional vandalism
involved in operating an Internet forwarding gate. You're a destructive
jerk. Your own statements make your motivations and actions quite clear.
Let me invite you to SCREW OFF if you are sincere in your disparagement of
the ham radio forwarding net. You don't need ham radio to play your
telephone games, and the ham radio forwarding net most assuredly does not
need you.
Take a hike.
> > Finally, Terry, be sure to quote the legal reasoning utilized in
countries
> > which outlaw packet/internet gates altogether, and point out how THEIR
part
> > of the global ham RF net is flourishing and growing, as compared to the
> > degraded integrity of the long-haul amateur radio digital net where
> > gateways have been allowed to proliferate.
> > -- That includes Australia, of course. --
>
> Firstly, since you raised the matter, find me a country that does
> specifically 'outlaw' Internet connected gateways, and then you
> get a legal interpretation of that legislation from a lawyer in
> that country and offer that before you invite me to play bush lawyer.
>
> Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.
>
Actually I do, and Australia isn't the only place where this question is
being raised.
> The original stated intention of the encapsulation gateways was to
> interconnect the disparate amateur radio groups around the world to
> encourage communication and development of amateur radio technology.
> If you think that this hasn't occurred then you didn't track the
> development of NOS and many other common amateur radio software
> developments very closely.
>
NOS is a failure as a ham radio application. When was the last time you
used NOS "networking" to talk to anyone more than 150 km. away OVER THE
RADIO? You haven't, because amateur TCP/IP is simply not up to snuff as a
ham radio application. You have to use the telephone to do anything
significant with it.
" The amateur TCP/IP network. Shit. I'd be ashamed to. Your idea of a
useful
HAM RADIO network doesn't match that of mine. "
> If you think that the proliferation of encapsulation gateways in this
> country has harmed amateur packet radio them you've obviously been
> talking
> to someone from the BBS forwarding crowd who've lost their wank status
> in the community.
>
It has obviously done the forwarding net very much damage, and this is
damage which was in no way neccessary in order for YOU to do YOUR thing.
-- You and other Internet Forwarding jerkoffs are only there in the amateur
radio forwarding net you love to run down for ONE REASON - To screw up what
others enjoy doing, since you don't agree with it.
What a bunch of worthless jerks!
> The growth in use of tcp/ip in the major cities in Australia has been
> phenomonal since the gateways were introduced. If you think having a
> community of amateur operators who are versed in a range of packet
> protocols
> is a poor thing then you will think this a bad thing.
>
Actually, operating a gateway does nothing to encourage long-haul packet
RADIO networking of ANY type. HF, VHF, or UHF. This has been proven over
and over again.
> NetRom, Rose and AX.25 radio based networks have an added incentive to
> be built, and are slowly being built to allow the many regionally based
> amateur radio operators to gain access to the gateways and therefore the
> fun of services such as convers.
Bullshit.
NetRom, ROSE, and AX25 nets have no incentive to grow, since every 'burg
has telephone service and at least one "ham" like you. Think it through, if
you're up to it.
All it takes is one LandLine Lid per town to totally destroy amateur packet
radio networking altogether.
>
> People are finally beginning to upgrade from 1200bps to higher modem
To be continued in digest: tcp_97_24E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
